Stark Expo coming to DL (and maybe WDW)?

[pilferk]

http://furiousfanboys.com/2011/04/the-stark-expo-becomes-a-reality/
http://movies.ign.com/articles/117/1179770p1.html

Rumors going around that Iron Man: The Stark Expo will be going into DL's Tomorrowland (replacing Innoventions). An addition to the rumor is that "something similar" will go into WDW Tomorrowland, replacing COP.

http://twitter.com/#!/cafeorleans

I have no idea if any of it has any merit, at all.

 

[Figment632]

I posted a thread about this a while back.

I still have the opinion of Meh!

 

[pilferk]

Just read on another tweet that there should be something announced at D23.

I'll believe it when I see it....

I'm not sure how Iron Man fits into Tomorrowland....

 

[nytimez]

Just read on another tweet that there should be something announced at D23.

I'll believe it when I see it....

I'm not sure how Iron Man fits into Tomorrowland....

He's no better or no worse a fit than Stitch, Buzz Lightyear or Mike Wazowski. That said, I like the idea of Stark Expo -- they were clearly channeling Walt Disney and the World's Fair with the Stark Expos in the film, especially in the supposed historical footage.

But I like it for Future World rather than Tomorrowland... I think CoP needs some serious TLC, but not a replacement.

 

[Florida Dreamin']

I like the idea, I just don't want COP to leave.

 

[MrToad_at_BLT]

I thought nothing Marvel could be put into Disney World at this time due to the Universal licensing agreement. Could this be part of a larger Marvel announcement?

 

[nytimez]

I thought nothing Marvel could be put into Disney World at this time due to the Universal licensing agreement. Could this be part of a larger Marvel announcement?

No. Only characters in use at Universal attractions can't be put into WDW. I don't think they're using Iron Man at Universal.

 

[pilferk]

I thought nothing Marvel could be put into Disney World at this time due to the Universal licensing agreement. Could this be part of a larger Marvel announcement?

The Universal deal ONLY covers certain characters:

Attractions (Characters licensed for the attraction use, but not necessarily for walk-around. Some in the attractions list are also licensed for walk-around, but not all.): Spider-Man, Doc Oc, Scream, Electro, Hydro-Man, Hobgoblin, J. Jonah Jameson, Hulk/Bruce Banner, Dr. Doom, Fantastic Four (as a group, not individually), Storm, Magneto, Professor X.

Walk around and/or Shop: Green Goblin, Cyclops, Rogue, Wolverine, Fantastic 4 (restaurant / walk around), Captain America (restaurant / walk around), Kingpin (shop / walk around), Merch (shop)

I've heard rumblings that Iron Man and Thor are included in the walk around license...but I suspect they may have been included in the deal with Paramount, which has since lapsed.

There HAVE been rumors that there is a provision blocking ANY use of Marvel characters, by ANY theme park, east of the Mississippi. but everything I've read and everyone I've communicated with who's had any sort of exposure to the actual contract (and trust me, it's all media types...not "insiders") says that's ONLY for the characters specifically licensed....that the master contract has the provision, but specifically says the provisions contained in it only refer to those characters covered in the sub-contracts.

The short answer is: Disney, as far as anyone can tell given what is known about the contract, could incorporate Iron Man at WDW. But nobody "inside" who's actually going to talk about the contract will say for sure.

 

[DC7800]

Anyone who wants to read the actual contract can do so, as it is posted on the SEC website. There's really no need to guess or rely upon rumor or second hand informaton.

As I understand it, Disney is perfectly free to use any Marvel character not used in a more than incidental manner by Universal; It appears Disney could use a character which is only used by Universal for walk-around appearances or which only appears as an incidental element in land or attraction theming.

Of course, Univeral is using most of the major characters in a more than incidental manner.

 

[nytimez]

Anyone who wants to read the actual contract can do so, as it is posted on the SEC website. There's really no need to guess or rely upon rumor or second hand informaton.

I had no idea -- but I can't seem to find it. Can you provide a link? I'd love to see it.

 

[pilferk]

Anyone who wants to read the actual contract can do so, as it is posted on the SEC website. There's really no need to guess or rely upon rumor or second hand informaton.

As I understand it, Disney is perfectly free to use any Marvel character not used in a more than incidental manner by Universal; It appears Disney could use a character which is only used by Universal for walk-around appearances or which only appears as an incidental element in land or attraction theming.

Of course, Univeral is using most of the major characters in a more than incidental manner.

I've never been able to track it down on the SEC website.

Do you have a link?

 

[DC7800]

I had no idea -- but I can't seem to find it. Can you provide a link? I'd love to see it.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

 

[pilferk]

And here's the relevant paragraph, which is pretty much exactly as was described to me:

East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]

All that was subsequent to the world wide exclusivity, which expired 2 years after IOA/Marvel Island opened....provided Universal did not build any more Marvel Islands (which they did not).

Now...the crux is the language concerning the Avengers, above. HULK and Spidey are NOT Avengers...but Cap is (restaurant at IOA). So, if the Avengers provision is considered "active"...Iron Man could not appear at WDW.

 

[TisBit]

And here's the relevant paragraph, which is pretty much exactly as was described to me:



All that was subsequent to the world wide exclusivity, which expired 2 years after IOA/Marvel Island opened....provided Universal did not build any more Marvel Islands (which they did not).

Now...the crux is the language concerning the Avengers, above. HULK and Spidey are NOT Avengers...but Cap is (restaurant at IOA). So, if the Avengers provision is considered "active"...Iron Man could not appear at WDW.

Not sure about the restaurant, but is it more than an "incidental" usage...so just the name or a painting on the wall. There could be a lot of interpretation there.....

There are a lot of clauses that could make it difficult for Universal to effectively market WWoHP (especially with future expansions) and still maintain its Marvel contract. There are a lot of things that Marvel wrote in about marketing, merchandising, etc that will prevent Universal from ignoring the brand without risk of losing the contract.

 

[nytimez]

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm

Awesome -- thanks much!

 

[pilferk]

Not sure about the restaurant, but is it more than an "incidental" usage...so just the name or a painting on the wall. There could be a lot of interpretation there.....

There are a lot of clauses that could make it difficult for Universal to effectively market WWoHP (especially with future expansions) and still maintain its Marvel contract. There are a lot of things that Marvel wrote in about marketing, merchandising, etc that will prevent Universal from ignoring the brand without risk of losing the contract.

From what I remember, Cap is used more than incidentally. The CS place is named after him (The Captain America Diner) and he's all over it. Not just a "splash" image here or there in the theming.

 

[mike the canuck]

http://www.slashfilm.com/theme-park...eyland-ride-battle-favorite-animated-villain/

 

[jcemom]

He's no better or no worse a fit than Stitch, Buzz Lightyear or Mike Wazowski. That said, I like the idea of Stark Expo -- they were clearly channeling Walt Disney and the World's Fair with the Stark Expos in the film, especially in the supposed historical footage.

But I like it for Future World rather than Tomorrowland... I think CoP needs some serious TLC, but not a replacement.

 

[Nudoru]

Maybe its just me, but I could SWEAR I saw Thor Toys for sale in Norway, and a cart in MK with Hats with various comic characters ( Punisher etc) and Spidey was among those as well. I will be there this weekend and if I can get photo proof I will be happy to do so.

 

[nytimez]

Maybe its just me, but I could SWEAR I saw Thor Toys for sale in Norway, and a cart in MK with Hats with various comic characters ( Punisher etc) and Spidey was among those as well. I will be there this weekend and if I can get photo proof I will be happy to do so.

Not just you -- they have been selling Marvel merch throughout WDW for a little while now.